Last updated at 9.30p.m.

Finance Minister Tonio Fenech in a surprise announcement, said today that he would abstain in the vote on the Divorce Bill in Parliament.

Mr Fenech had, before the referendum, been strongly against the introduction of divorce and had been criticised about some of his newspaper articles involving religion.

Writing in The Malta Independent, Mr Fenech had insisted that: “the divorce debate cannot be divorced from faith” and God “has a say in the morals of... this country”.

Mr Fenech had also hit out at people who attended the processions of Our Lady of Sorrows and were irked by anti-divorce statements made during some of them. 

“I think the occasion was actually very befitting of such a message; I am sure Our Lady is very sorrowful that Malta is considering divorce,” Mr Fenech wrote.

But after the referendum he had refused to make his position clear. On May 30 he had told The Times that he would not obstruct the divorce law once the people were in favour of it. “People voted for divorce, and it is parliament’s duty to have the law the people want. I will not be there to obstruct it,” Mr Fenech said.

“It’s important the law passes.” 

Speaking during the debate in Parliament this evening, Mr Fenech said the people had made a choice in the referendum. He had a heavy heart about the outcome. The people's decision would have an impact on society, now and in the future. In societies where divorce was introduced the value of marriage had diminished. Permanence in many cases had been replaced by the temporary.

The debate on the good or bad of divorce was past, however. The decision had been taken. Parliament now had a duty to ensure that the law respected what the people voted for. It also needed to be ensured that what had been lost would be substituted by other measures which would strengthen marriage.

The government, he said, had introduced several family-friendly measures but more needed to be done. He felt that children should be educated on the importance of strong marriage, for society and for individuals. People needed to known what they were going in for when they decided to marry.

The Maltese people, despite voting for divorce, had been cautious in wanting a responsible divorce with several safeguards.

Mr Fenech said that post referendum, the debate was not about what needed to be done to improve the Divorce Bill, but about how every MP would vote. This was a disservice to the country and to those who said they wanted responsible divorce.

The country needed to look forward, not backward. This was not about winning and losing. Those who were in favour of divorce were not against marriage.

The Bill needed to be improved to truly respect the referendum question. It needed to include the mechanism to ensure that people who opted for divorce realised their responsibilities. It needed to provide the maintenance guarantees that were promised, notably with regard to children.

Mr Fenech said he defended the right of every MP to vote as he wished in Parliament, according to his conscience.

The obligation to ensure that this law was approved rested primarily on those MPs who had backed the bill for the holding of the referendum and proposed the referendum question. It was unfair that some of those MPs insisted that MPs who had been against divorce and the referendum question, should back the Divorce Bill.

Nonetheless, with a sense of responsibility, the PN and the Prime Minister had said that they would ensure that the Bill was approved, in line with the people's wishes, and they would work to ensure that the law provided what the people really wanted.

MPs should not be asked to declare their vote before the Bill was properly defined. The Bill did not reflect the referendum question because it did not give a proper voice to children and did not really guarantee maintenance to them.

A process had to be followed, Mr Fenech said, but for the curious, he would declare that he believed that divorce was wrong. He however respected the fact that the people voted for divorce, and therefore, he would not hinder the process. He would abstain and also propose amendments to improve the Bill.

Gulia: PM must vote in favour

Earlier in today's parliamentary sitting, Labour MP Gavin Gulia said his political position in favour of divorce was long standing and well known.

Parliament had a duty to respect the referendum result and should refine the Divorce Bill while observing the referendum question.

He felt that the prime minister as head of the government, had a duty to vote in favour of divorce and also urge his party to change its position and respect the people's decision.

Dr Gulia insisted that divorce did not destroy marriages. Marriage was already destroyed when people sought divorce.

The introduction of divorce was belated, he said. This could have happened as early as 1975, when civil marriage was introduced. That more marriages were breaking up now was irrelevant. Once this was a civil right, it should have been introduced earlier.

De Marco: Respecting the democratic process

Parliamentary Secretary Mario de Marco said that the introduction of civil marriage meant that the introduction of divorce was a matter of time. The number of separations was not alarming but it was increasing. Furthermore, a third of children were now born out of wedlock.

Society was changing in every sense. Values were changing too. Malta was part of the global village and change could not be ignored. The referendum showed what the people felt. Some argued that it would have been best had Parliament taken its decision instead of holding the referendum. He felt, however, that holding the referendum was wise.

The country now needed to move forward, respecting the outcome of the divorce while also respecting the views of those who were against divorce. It was notable that both political parties were saying that the result would be referendum would be respected.

He personally had reservations on the concept of no-fault divorce, but he felt it his duty to vote in favour of the Divorce Bill. He wished to tell his constituents that he meant no disrespect to those who had voted against divorce in the referendum. His vote was respecting the democratic process which they themselves had participated in. After all, his party was both Christian and Democratic in equal measure.

He said that once no-fault divorce was being introduced, one should consider consensual divorce as long as the four year separation period was observed. There should also be the possibility of more mediation services. One should consider more measures to safeguard the interests of children.

Concluding, Dr de Marco said MPs should work to strengthen the institution of marriage so that, hopefully, this law would be used as little as possible.

Censu Galea: Society is changing

Censu Galea said society was changing. One might like the change, but it could not be stopped. People whose marriage had failed should be helped to reintegrate in society.

Marlene Pullicino: Divorce needs to be backed with other law changes

Marlene Pullicino said the permanence of marriage could be eroded because of the presence of divorce. Marriage, however, failed for a multitude of reasons and she felt that people whose marriage had failed should be given the opportunity to achieve their purposes by trying again. The introduction of divorce was not an imposition on those who did not wish to divorce.

This legislation, she said, should come accompanied with other measures to help people who took this option, including tax and pension matters, efficiency in the law courts, legal aid and facilities where children could be heard.

In her personal view, divorce was not good for society, Ms Pullicino Orlando said, but she could not ignore the rights of individuals, more so when such rights were available abroad.

The right to choose became real when divorce was supported by the proper structures while efforts were also made to save marriages, Ms Pullicino said.

Mifsud Bonnici - Divorce Bill drafting is confusing

Justice Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici said the Divorce Bill as drafted was strange and confusing. He believed that the Bill would be approved by Parliament, but the problems of the new proposed system would arise when it was in effect.

Dr Mifsud Bonnici said that he would be voting against the Bill since it was not coherent and did not clearly regulate an issue as delicate as divorce.

He did not agree with divorce for secular reasons. The people had, however, voted in favour of divorce and thus there no longer was the need to question whether divorce should be introduced or not.

Parliament should now focus on the content of the Bill. He criticised the way the electorate had been presented with the referendum question which was very restricted and had limited the way divorce could be legally introduced.  

Malta was the only country which offered free mediation services during separation proceedings to encourage couples to try to reach a compromise before resorting to separation. Over a period of seven years there had been 6,000 requests for separation. Of these, 12 per cent had reconciled.   

The Bill was not promoting reconciliation. Indeed, certain clauses encouraged the parties to prolong separation proceedings for four years in order to be eligible to obtain divorce instead.

Furthermore the Bill was very vague on the issue of alimony and was not clear who would be eligible for this. Further clauses had to be included to clearly guarantee the right to maintenance.

In separation cases, the court took into consideration the reasons why a couple was separating. In domestic violence, the judgment and conditions presented by the court were different to those handed down to persons who had separated for no valid reason. The Bill was, however, proposing a no fault divorce; thus no criteria were being set and all were being put into the same basket.

The Bill did not offer a balance between freedom and responsibility.

Michael Farrugia: Need for laws on assisted procreation, cohabitation

Labour MP Michael Farrugia said divorce law was needed because it introduced legal order in an area which was unregulated as people opted for cohabitation. There, however, was also need for a law on cohabitation for those who did not marry.

Order was also needed in other sectors, such as artificial procreation. This divorce law was being debated a year after a private member's bill was presented by a Nationalist MP. Yet cohabitation had been mentioned since 1998 without any legislation, even though it affected thousands of people. And parliament had been speaking of legislation on assisted procreation for six years, again without any result.

Stephen Spiteri: Need for responsible legislation

Nationalist MP Stephen Spiteri said the will of the majority has to be respected, but Parliament needed to ensure that the law was enacted in a responsible manner for the benefit of society. It needed to be ensured that everyone realised his responsibilities in going in for a second marriage.